Questions RE Burke's involvement....

Questions RE Burke's involvement....

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#1 Dec 31, 2011
On September 29, 2010, "The Early Show" reported that Lawrence Schiller had told them about Burke Ramsey being contacted by detectives in an attempt to elicit more information about the murder of his sister, JonBenet, back in December, 1996. Following is what they reported:

<quote>
(CBS) An expert on the JonBenet murder case says his sources confirm reports that investigators in Boulder, Colo. would like to speak again to her older brother, Burke Ramsey, in case he saw something at the time that could help them connect some newly-surfaced dots now.

Lawrence Schiller, a contributor to The Daily Beast, founder of the Norman Mailer Writers Colony and author of one of the definitive books on the Ramsey case, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," told "Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez Tuesday he called some sources in Boulder on Monday.

"They said the police had sent on their business cards and asked Burke, if his time permitted, if he could get in touch with them," Schiller said.

"You have to remember," Schiller explained, "number one, he was 9 years old, a frail kid. Not very large in size. His sister was younger. There's a lot of evidence that has still been unexplained over the years. Footprints have been identified, but some have not. Handprints and palm prints have been identified in the room where her body was found. Some still not. In essence, the body was placed there. It wasn't dragged in. And then it was wrapped in a blanket.

"Now, if he was a witness to some event that night, something THAT MAY, in essence, NOW CONNECT WITH SOMETHING ELSE, you have to remember, this murder took place in a community that was embarrassed by it. Wasn't prepared for it. Did not have a history of violence. The police are never going to give up on this case. There's no statute of limitation on murder."

"In other words," Rodriguez asked, "(probers) MAY HAVE DISCOVERED SOME NEW EVIDENCE THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY MAKE (BURKE) A SUSPECT, BUT TO WHICH HE COULD POSSIBLY SPEAK?"

"THAT'S CORRECT," Schiller responded. "He was exonerated by DNA, by many, many methods that the police used at that point. But the question is, in his own mind now, this many years away, has he locked away the facts of this murder? Has he, in essence, put it in a room, closed the door, and doesn't want to think about it? So how helpful can he be? You know, just because questions are unanswered doesn't mean somebody is withholding the answer."

Schiller says it's not surprising that Boulder police are staying mum on the new reports and that the Ramsey family lawyer says Burke hasn't met with them again yet.

"If there is a real lead, nobody's gonna tell you about it!" Schiller exclaimed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/28/ear...

<end quote>

I believe some reporters took the information that detectives wanted to talk to Burke again in the wrong way, starting an avalanche of rumors/innuendos that he was again high on the suspect list.

But from what is said in this article, it appears that new evidence has been found that needs clarification and to do this, they will have needed to talk to Burke again. Note the, "in case he saw something at the time that could help them connect some newly-surfaced dots now."

Now after more than a year, we still don't know of what "some newly-surfaced dots" consist.

I believe the following statement should be considered: "Now, if he was a witness to some event that night, something that may, in essence, now connect with something else...". IOW, I think it's entirely possible that law enforcement only wanted to consult with Burke in order to clarify or substantiate other information they'd discovered.

The question now is, after so long a time, did Burke ever submit to more interviews and if he did, is it possible that LE might now be near a solution to the crime?

Judged:

23

23

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#2 Dec 31, 2011
I believe that Schiller said the following for a reason:

"You have to remember," Schiller explained, "number one, he was 9 years old, a frail kid. Not very large in size. His sister was younger. There's a lot of evidence that has still been unexplained over the years. Footprints have been identified, but some have not. Handprints and palm prints have been identified in the room where her body was found. Some still not. In essence, the body was placed there. It wasn't dragged in. And then it was wrapped in a blanket."

I believe Schiller was emphasizing that Burke was a frail kid and would not have been capable of lifting and CARRYING JonBenet's body into the wine cellar without dragging it. Or even wrapping it in a blanket afterwards.

IMO, a very good observation.

Judged:

21

21

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#3 Dec 31, 2011
It should be noted that since the full DNA report is not available for public knowledge, nobody really knows for sure if Burke's DNA was not there.

I think in order to get an interview with Burke, they weren't going to put him in a category as suspect and in fact, he was a witness to the crime even if not involved. There are many inconsistencies and contradictions that he could clear up if he WANTED to. Was JBR awake that night as he claimed? Did they have pineapple?

And I'm sure many more questions such as, now that we know he was awake and not asleep, what else he may have heard as well as questions that we may not even be aware require questions.

Don't forget that in the NE transcripts that Jameson sold FOR PROFIT, she OMITTED all Burke information, so there could be a myriad of things that we just don't know about and require clarification

The aspect of carrying her body is not an issue IMO and with my theory as I believe whatever happened, happened in the basement and the parents took care of the rest. It infers planning to include having to carry her anywhere and IMO, this was not a planned crime

This was an accident that was covered up to protect their son.

Judged:

22

21

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
The Truth Hurts

Waterford, MI

#4 Dec 31, 2011
Ole South wrote:
I believe that Schiller said the following for a reason:
"You have to remember," Schiller explained, "number one, he was 9 years old, a frail kid. Not very large in size. His sister was younger. There's a lot of evidence that has still been unexplained over the years. Footprints have been identified, but some have not. Handprints and palm prints have been identified in the room where her body was found. Some still not. In essence, the body was placed there. It wasn't dragged in. And then it was wrapped in a blanket."
I believe Schiller was emphasizing that Burke was a frail kid and would not have been capable of lifting and CARRYING JonBenet's body into the wine cellar without dragging it. Or even wrapping it in a blanket afterwards.
IMO, a very good observation.
BDIs typically don't believe Burke did anything beyond the initial blow to the head. He was not involved in any of the cover-up.
I believe most of us have made that pretty clear over the years. I don't understand why we have to keep repeating it.

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#5 Dec 31, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
This was an accident that was covered up to protect their son.
There is little to no evidence that Burke or John was involved. If so please post it.

Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl, fibers consistent with John's shirt were on the body, that's it.

The accident/cover-up theory is full of holes.

It is far more consistent with known psychology to think one mentally disturbed person did that to a little girl than two otherwise normal yet desperate people.
DEB

Minneapolis, MN

#6 Dec 31, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
It should be noted that since the full DNA report is not available for public knowledge, nobody really knows for sure if Burke's DNA was not there.
I think in order to get an interview with Burke, they weren't going to put him in a category as suspect and in fact, he was a witness to the crime even if not involved. There are many inconsistencies and contradictions that he could clear up if he WANTED to. Was JBR awake that night as he claimed? Did they have pineapple?
And I'm sure many more questions such as, now that we know he was awake and not asleep, what else he may have heard as well as questions that we may not even be aware require questions.
Don't forget that in the NE transcripts that Jameson sold FOR PROFIT, she OMITTED all Burke information, so there could be a myriad of things that we just don't know about and require clarification
The aspect of carrying her body is not an issue IMO and with my theory as I believe whatever happened, happened in the basement and the parents took care of the rest. It infers planning to include having to carry her anywhere and IMO, this was not a planned crime
This was an accident that was covered up to protect their son.
In all fairness, we know Burke was interviewed a length by BP and a psychologist - surely they would have asked him about the pineapple. From what we have heard, LE thought Burke was not involved from what they were able glean from those interviews.

iirc - didn't Burke state he heard the floor boards creaking? This would indicate he was awake in his room, or something woke him up during the night.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#7 Dec 31, 2011
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
BDIs typically don't believe Burke did anything beyond the initial blow to the head. He was not involved in any of the cover-up.
I believe most of us have made that pretty clear over the years. I don't understand why we have to keep repeating it.
Although I've seen many generalities concerning RDI opinions, I've never seen any point-by-point details regarding such theories.

If I was remiss in not taking note of such details, then I apologize. Anyway, the point I was making here was to emphasize what Schiller was saying about Burke not being able to carry JB's body...not directing it specifically to anyone in particular. But since you and Cappie both have pointed out that in your theory he would not have been required to do so, I do understand.

Shall I just say, "My bad"?

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#8 Dec 31, 2011
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
There is little to no evidence that Burke or John was involved. If so please post it.
Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl, fibers consistent with John's shirt were on the body, that's it.
The accident/cover-up theory is full of holes.
It is far more consistent with known psychology to think one mentally disturbed person did that to a little girl than two otherwise normal yet desperate people.
IMO, there was little evidence that Burke, John, OR Patsy was involved. The only evidence linking Patsy was the opinions of a couple of handwriting analysts who claim she wrote the note. This can be easily challenged since various and sundry analysts have said this one and that one wrote the note, according to their beliefs. But IMO, if going by numbers, more expert analysts claimed Karr wrote the note than the others in totality.(Taking into consideration one of the claims that Patsy wrote it was made by Foster, IIRC.)

And I agree with BrotherMoon that "It is far more consistent with known psychology to think one mentally disturbed person did that to a little girl than two otherwise normal yet desperate people." My difference is that the "mentally disturbed person" was not Patsy, but was a man who from early childhood bore the marks of having been severely abused by a mentally ill mother. Severe child abuse is known to cause mental impairment in the victim. Karr himself has admitted to having MPD, and his many other traits of mental illness are readily identified in his writings and actions.

Also, IMO, since the DNA DID eliminate Karr from the suspect list, I believe that the same reasoning should have eliminated the Ramseys. Therefore, if the Ramseys are still to be considered as suspects, BTST, Karr should remain on that same list.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#9 Dec 31, 2011
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, IMO, since the DNA DID eliminate Karr from the suspect list, I believe that the same reasoning should have eliminated the Ramseys. Therefore, if the Ramseys are still to be considered as suspects, BTST, Karr should remain on that same list.
Faulty logic. It could have been transfer DNA (since it hasn't been proven not to be), and the Ramseys were the only ones proven to be in the house. Prove to me Karr was in the house and he can come in to the scenario as well.
pinker

Elkhorn, WI

#10 Dec 31, 2011
The panties found on JonBenet's corpse were of a size the contempories of Burke would have worn. Perhaps Law Enforcement wanted to go over a list of kids from his school or girls the family knew from Atlanta or Michigan. Kids he would have known that would have fit the size 12 underwear found on his sister's size 6 dead body. It's for certain his parents were never forthcoming about talking with police honestly or openly, they set conditions.

For the case to proceed the DNA as insignificant as it is to the death itself has to be accounted for. They spent years swabbing little friends of Jonbenet's when perhaps they should have been swabbing Burke's friends...

Burke was never to small to have caused the head injury. He'd hit her in the face a year earlier with a golf club. Given the right weapon JonBenet could have inflicted a similar injury to Burke. Look at the images of the basment very carefully and zoom in.... there's a brand new NIKE child's size golf bag complete with the tags still attached and a purple bow... how did it get put outside the winecellar door so quickly?

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#11 Dec 31, 2011
Perhaps and could have are not evidence.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#12 Dec 31, 2011
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Faulty logic. It could have been transfer DNA (since it hasn't been proven not to be), and the Ramseys were the only ones proven to be in the house. Prove to me Karr was in the house and he can come in to the scenario as well.
And why is this faulty logic? It's no more faulty than your saying "it could have been transfer DNA". Why would it being transfer DNA eliminate the Ramseys but not Karr?

Your response to everything pertaining to Karr is a standard, "the Ramseys were the only ones proven to be in the house. Prove to me Karr was in the house and he can come in to the scenario as well."

And each time you make such a claim, I'll keep claiming that had LE done their homework, they would have found evidence that Karr was indeed in Boulder that night. I won't go into all the clues that indicate he was since Biz and I went into great detail in an earlier thread -- a thread that shows how Karr very probably not only WAS IN BOULDER THAT NIGHT, but also shows that he is a good candidate for having committed the crime.

So, you might as well stop saying, "The Ramseys were the only ones PROVEN to be in the house." That is, unless and until you can prove one of the Ramseys committed the crime.

Just BEING THERE does not make them guilty. That is on a par with saying Karr cannot have committed the crime because he wasn't proved to be there. False logic.

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#13 Dec 31, 2011
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
And why is this faulty logic?
It came from you.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#14 Dec 31, 2011
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
It came from you.
There's one in every crowd.
The Truth Hurts

United States

#15 Dec 31, 2011
pinker wrote:
The panties found on JonBenet's corpse were of a size the contempories of Burke would have worn. Perhaps Law Enforcement wanted to go over a list of kids from his school or girls the family knew from Atlanta or Michigan. Kids he would have known that would have fit the size 12 underwear found on his sister's size 6 dead body. It's for certain his parents were never forthcoming about talking with police honestly or openly, they set conditions.
For the case to proceed the DNA as insignificant as it is to the death itself has to be accounted for. They spent years swabbing little friends of Jonbenet's when perhaps they should have been swabbing Burke's friends...
Burke was never to small to have caused the head injury. He'd hit her in the face a year earlier with a golf club. Given the right weapon JonBenet could have inflicted a similar injury to Burke. Look at the images of the basment very carefully and zoom in.... there's a brand new NIKE child's size golf bag complete with the tags still attached and a purple bow... how did it get put outside the winecellar door so quickly?
Actually, the golf club incident happened at least 3 years prior to JBs death, Pinker.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#16 Dec 31, 2011
DEB wrote:
<quoted text>
In all fairness, we know Burke was interviewed a length by BP and a psychologist - surely they would have asked him about the pineapple. From what we have heard, LE thought Burke was not involved from what they were able glean from those interviews.
iirc - didn't Burke state he heard the floor boards creaking? This would indicate he was awake in his room, or something woke him up during the night.
While it is true that Burke was interviewed at length THEN, there is more to the story obviously that they either didn't ask THEN or want to clarify NOW. What's the harm? AND....if they asked him about the pineapple and it bolstered what the Ramseys have stated, it's logical that they would have made sure the public knew about that IMO.

Perhaps the pineapple wasn't as big a "bugaboo" when they were interviewing Burke as it turned out to be and they have further questions. There are a million things that they could want to ask or clarify and if everyone is truly innocent, not wanting to be bothered or go through it again should play a secondary role to helping to find a murderer for the sake of THEIR loved one.

Perhaps they feel he was "coached" back then and programmed to state certain things; things that he may retract now or elaborate on.

Whatever the reason, his refusal is inexcusable for supposed innocent family members

There is NO valid excuse for refusal to help now. If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear, especially with a lawyer.

His refusal speaks volumes to me IMO

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#17 Dec 31, 2011
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
And why is this faulty logic? It's no more faulty than your saying "it could have been transfer DNA". Why would it being transfer DNA eliminate the Ramseys but not Karr?
Your response to everything pertaining to Karr is a standard, "the Ramseys were the only ones proven to be in the house. Prove to me Karr was in the house and he can come in to the scenario as well."
And each time you make such a claim, I'll keep claiming that had LE done their homework, they would have found evidence that Karr was indeed in Boulder that night. I won't go into all the clues that indicate he was since Biz and I went into great detail in an earlier thread -- a thread that shows how Karr very probably not only WAS IN BOULDER THAT NIGHT, but also shows that he is a good candidate for having committed the crime.
So, you might as well stop saying, "The Ramseys were the only ones PROVEN to be in the house." That is, unless and until you can prove one of the Ramseys committed the crime.
Just BEING THERE does not make them guilty. That is on a par with saying Karr cannot have committed the crime because he wasn't proved to be there. False logic.
The transfer DNA can eliminate Karr but not the Ramseys because IMO and IMO only (won't speak for anyone else) there was ALSO Ramsey DNA found and if there was even a speck of Karr DNA found, they would have prosecuted him. He couldn't have transferred DNA without also leaving his own. The odds are ridiculously high that it could happen that way. That is, IMO, why we won't see that full report. There is plenty of Ramsey DNA that left the other DNA. They won't tell us that for obvious reasons

I truly believe that the investigators DID do their homework and Karr was eliminated based on things other than DNA. I do not believe they just dismissed him based on the DNA or the alibi provided. It wouldn't be enough to dismiss him in total after a confession. I'd be willing to bet that he was eliminated for good reason. Again, just my opinion that they all WANTED it to be Karr. That would be beneficial for all concerned. The case could be closed and everyone would have gone home happy, especially the authorities in Boulder. Karr was/is a nobody and nobody would have cared if he went to prison for this.

If he was let go, it was for good reason.

All just my opinion

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#18 Dec 31, 2011
The fact they tried to contact him is evidence there is still activity in the case. I think it was a rather bold move.

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#19 Dec 31, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I truly believe that the investigators DID do their homework and Karr was eliminated based on things other than DNA.
Such as common sense.

Since: May 11

Seattle, WA

#20 Dec 31, 2011
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
While it is true that Burke was interviewed at length THEN, there is more to the story obviously that they either didn't ask THEN or want to clarify NOW. What's the harm? AND....if they asked him about the pineapple and it bolstered what the Ramseys have stated, it's logical that they would have made sure the public knew about that IMO.
Perhaps the pineapple wasn't as big a "bugaboo" when they were interviewing Burke as it turned out to be and they have further questions. There are a million things that they could want to ask or clarify and if everyone is truly innocent, not wanting to be bothered or go through it again should play a secondary role to helping to find a murderer for the sake of THEIR loved one.
Perhaps they feel he was "coached" back then and programmed to state certain things; things that he may retract now or elaborate on.
Whatever the reason, his refusal is inexcusable for supposed innocent family members
There is NO valid excuse for refusal to help now. If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear, especially with a lawyer.
His refusal speaks volumes to me IMO
Hi Cap, and Happy New Year! Just wanted to mention I recieved a pineapple this Christmas, and of course thought of JonBenet. As I cut it, I realized what they meant by 'right down to the rind', because I didn't get all the little bits of rind off, either.
I could understand why the kids would love it, it was so sweet!(haven't eaten pineapple in years) It's possible the kids grabbed a chunk from the bowl on the table like candy from a dish and judging by the description of the kitchen, could have been sitting out for days.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Garbage in, garbage out (Apr '16) 24 min Tex- 15
"woof, woof, little puppy" (Sep '10) 30 min Tex- 47
Joran Van der Sloot CONFESSES in Peru (Jun '10) 34 min Tex- 190
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... 41 min Tex- 19
There was Slim Fast Everywhere 49 min Tex- 12
News Being overweight may be caused by the clock in ... 54 min Tex- 35
The Final Solution (Jan '12) 1 hr Tex- 13
More from around the web